September 19, 2011

Michael Olneck, Professor Emeritus of Educational Policy Studies and Sociology at UW-Madison, has a letter in The Daily Cardinal, about the reaction to the reports from the Center for Equal Opportunity (which found racial discrimination in UW-Madison's admissions).

Ms. Chavez takes at face value, and further publicizes, the Doubletree's manager's description of what occurred at the hotel. The press release issued by the Doubletree described the large group of student protesters as a "mob" that "became increasingly physically violent when forcing themselves into the meeting room where the press conference had already ended." And, it alleged that "staff were then rushed by a mob of protesters, throwing employees to the ground."

I attended the press conference, and was in the main lobby of the hotel afterward. There was no "mob" that was "physically violent." There was an organized group of protesters whose loud chanting forced an end to the press conference, and which attempted to enter the conference room after the doors were open. Two hotel employees attempted to physically prevent the group from entering the room, and the group pushed through them.

Pushed through them?! So, you're saying you know they did not fall to the ground or simply that you did not see anything more than that they were "pushed through"? And that's not violent because... why? You can go into a private business place, decide you get to go where you want to go, and push through the employees that try to guard a door and that's not violent? And it's not a "mob" because... why? You described a mob!

Members of the group attempted to confront Mr. Clegg, and made his exit difficult.

Deliberately depriving someone of his ability to leave a place is a crime. You don't think it's physically violent? Go to that link: It's a felony in Wisconsin. Thanks for the description of what you saw, but your account reinforces the press report that Chavez relied on. You may deny the characterizations "mob" and "physically violent," but you, an eyewitness, describe the details, stating facts that would lead me to characterize it as a physically violent mob.

Some followed him as he headed toward what I presume was the elevator bank. While this experience was clearly unfamiliar and unnerving to Doubletree staff, for the manager and Ms. Chavez to depict what occurred as the actions of a "mob" is an egregious slur on the students. While the protest may well have broken decorum, its well-motivated participants do not deserve to be characterized as a "mob."

Incredible! Or perhaps not so incredible here in Madison, Wisconsin where people seem to have acquired the idea that the usual rules don't apply if you're propelled by righteous anger against a demonized a political opponent. You're "well-motivated" so what would otherwise be crimes become mere breaches of "decorum."

Is this the Madison mind-set? Is this what passes for liberalism around here? It seems to me that a true liberal would never say that what is a crime (or a tort) depends on one's political orientation. Picture a press conference by a beloved advocate of civil rights stormed by a group of racist skinheads, Professor Olneck. Make all the actions exactly the same, but change the political viewpoints. Would you then use the words "mob" and "physically violent"?

Um, if I recall correctly, one student let all of the others in through a kitchen entrance into the building.

Presumably, if the good professor was in the ballroom he was not in the kitchen and had no fucking idea what went on when, say, kitchen staff were trying to prevent the mob from entering the building in the first place.

I watched a PBS fundraiser the other night that featured Peter, Paul and Mary. One of the clips featured Dr. Martin Luther King talking about the dignity of all humanity. Although the left often invokes the name of Dr. King, this seems to be one of his lessons that they have either forgotten or chose to ignore.

Of course it is. It's the liberal mind set. Madison just turns it up to 11. And it goes beyond "become mere breaches of "decorum." It's acceptable. And it has become that because it is either encouraged or tolerated by those in positions of authority.

I was stuck in Traffic the other day and while my guard was down allowed the radio to settle on a Pacifica Radio program on the Haymarket Anarchists.

It was a book review on a reevaluation of the trial of the Haymarket bombers. The avowedly progressive author concluded reluctantly that the trial was fair compared to the standards of the day and the accused were guilty. He and the Progressive interviewer admitted that while the bombers meant well for social change, the bombing hurt the cause.

"Is this the Madison mind-set? Is this what passes for liberalism around here? It seems to me that a true liberal would never say that what is a crime (or a tort) depends on one's political orientation."

I long ago noticed that many of the Madison liberals I knew fully supported criminalizing speech they disagreed with.

Reminds me of that idiot in the news the other day who excused his actions by saying "I'd NEVER do anything physical, so I just poured my beer on them."Pouring something on someone isn't physical? Really? It's a physical attack that, in most parts of the world, will get your ass kicked, but it's a 'excuse' that a lot of PC-minded idiots buy.

Didn't this stammering jackass of a Sociology Professor re-read his own work and realize that, as Althouse points out, he totally refutes himself? The weasel words like "push through" and "broken decorum" are way too obvious to do any good hiding his intentions. Hey Olneck, next time you write a sophomoric attempt at a whitewash, don't out yourself in the second paragraph. Idiot.

Allen S: not sure what our hostess was talking about except that men, involved in a pissing contest can write their names in the snow--call it directional urination if you will--women, unless they are belly dancers cannot do that--probably pissing envy

Quite a few people believe violence only occurs when someone is hurt by physical action. Not so. If you stand there and poke my chest with a finger as we argue, I can have you arrested for assault. Same with splashing me with your drink.

Freud thinks primitive man preened himself on his ability to put out a fire with a stream of urine. A strange thing to be proud of but certainly beyond the scope of woman, who would scorch her hams in the process. Male urination is a kind of accomplishment, an arc of transcendence. A woman merely waters the ground she stands on. Male urination is a form of commentary...

Huxley, Orwell and Humpty Dumpty are all smilingtoday after reading yet another vindication of their views about the power of words and their inventive use,, human nature and the progress of mankind--the latest confirmation being evidenced by Olnecks' letter..

I long ago noticed that many of the Madison liberals I knew fully supported criminalizing speech they disagreed with.

Forgetting for the moment all of the emotional baggage that goes along with "liberal" and "conservative" these days, is there a correct term for someone that would make illegal speech they don't agree with, or does it rely on what the original motivation to restrict that speech?

Allen S: not sure what our hostess was talking about except that men, involved in a pissing contest can write their names in the snow--call it directional urination if you will--women, unless they are belly dancers cannot do that--probably pissing envy

We have so little left (no pun intended) in today's world. Please don't take snow writing away from us.

"All the characteristics of mob behavior set forth by Le Bon in 1895 are evident in modern liberalism…extreme black-and-white thinking…inability to follow logical arguments…a religious worship of their leaders, and a blind hatred of their opponents.

Many of liberals’ peculiarities are understandable only when one realizes that they are a mob. For example, a crowd’s ability to grasp only the simplest ideas is reflected in the interminable slogans…

Again...people spend 6 figures to have their children "educated" (or should I say 're-educated') at institutions like UW? Seems like such a waste of money. Certainly, staff like Professor Olneck are not preparing students for life outside the Madison city limits. Such a shame that half the WI state population is despised by the University meant for all.

Professor: I figured you were but you got to stop using words like "jocose" My vocabulary is restricted to four letter words of anglo saxon origin--And as I said above: you are more than capable of responding to academic contretemps where the stakes are so small. thanks for getting back to me--much appreciated

I haven't followed the details about the incident, but was there any sizable contingent of blacks in the crowd of protesters? If so, I think advocates of AA need to think carefully about this situation compared with the demonstrations over the budget and union rights bill.

It's one thing to have a bunch of white people arguing with, and at times even getting a little physical with, a bunch of other white people, all worked up about budget issues. The optics are totally different when race is involved right? If a crowd composed partly of black people presses in on and gets aggressive with white people, isn't that terrible PR for the people who have blacks on their side?

I understand the emotion over this issue, on both sides, and it may not be fair, but don't blacks who are demonstrating have to be careful not to even convey a hint of physical threat, to avoid having their efforts tainted by the "angry black" stereotype? For example, Obama has long been lauded for his reserve and his ability to avoid projecting anything like that. Again, I admit there's a double standard at work here, but demonstrators against people like Clegg who have blacks in their midst do themselves no favors by engaging in rough tactics.

I wonder if the young rebellious Althouse in the 60's would give a shit about this splitting of hairs if she was in that mob fighting for "rights".

I get the point, but imagining a large group of active young people acting as we might think appropriate is the a kind of naivete one develops with age.

It might seem like that would be nice to see, but it's just not what being young is about.

When we also see the older people doing it in Madison, it's the immaturity of the leftist collectivist mind. They enjoy the reminiscent act of rebellion even more than they feel the message. "I'm still young!"

Women do not know the heartbreak of an englarged prostate. On the senior circuit, women do very well in pissing contests......A mob is any group of two or more people who express dissatisfaction with Obama or his policies. By definition this is not a mob.

All you have to do is, to use GodZero's line, "Get in their faces". It's all about intimidation and right out of Uncle Saul's book.

A bunch of screaming people does plenty of violence.

This, after all, is how the Lefties could brag, "they had hounded LBJ out of office".

Ann Althouse said...

@Roger J At the University of Wisconsin, we call it "sifting and winnowing." Not "a pissing contest."

And your metaphor discriminates against women.

Not if they lay on their backs and wear a skirt with no undies.

Roger J. said...

Allen S: not sure what our hostess was talking about except that men, involved in a pissing contest can write their names in the snow--call it directional urination if you will--women, unless they are belly dancers cannot do that--probably pissing envy

I'll bet there are more than a few exotic dancers and, uh, performance artists that can, as well.

Now, the left is redefining violence. Pushing your way past someone trying to deny you entry is violence. Do that at the front door os someone's house in most states and they can legally shoot you (to death). It's obvious where the professor's sentiments lay.

How long to someone gets seriously injured? Who will they blame then? When will it be safe for a conservative or libertarian to have dinner at a restuarant in Madison?

As I said yesterday: Madison is a hellhole of left wing idiocy, violence and hatred.

a most memorable thread, filled with those events that alter and illuminate our times--I am off to regain the level of frustration that comes from playing a round of golf--To all a most memorable day and godspeed

Scott M--was almost gone but your post got me--I do not measure my golf score in par but if I can keep the same ball thru a round--so far, four rounds with the same ball--good on me. My par? nahh not relevant :) I have low expecations

Dollars to dog doo this guy is a pencil necked geek on top of it all. Yet, imagine the frisson what with all those excited, sweaty students pushing forward into the lair of the racist, capitalist insect. My goodness. It makes one want to take a knee - or in this case give a knee- to the groin.

"The Athletic Department recognizes student-athletes and staff of diverse backgrounds which include but are not limited to individuals of color (African-American, Hispanic, Asian or Pacific Islander and American Indian), those who identify as LGBTQA (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer, and Ally) and individuals with disabilities."

Garbage Mahal: I wouldn't spend a dollar in Madison. Which makes our collective economic impact on the city about the same, because I'm sure you don't have a dollar in your pocket, unless it was given to you by somebody else.

I was looking for the majors of the football players, but that could be top secret (embarrassing) information.

You didn't look very hard. If you look at the roster, and click on the individual players, you can see some majors. I suspect whether it's there or not depends on the player. Nick Toon's major is listed, and so is Josh Oglesby's (the two seniors I looked at).

Ann, it is articles like these -- arguably against your own interests -- that show you are trustworthy and arguing in good faith. I may disagree with you but I need not parse each word to ferret out lies or misrepresentations. Thank you for creating this blog where such vigorous dialogue can take place.

Only one upperclassman in the first ten on the roster. Look at the Seniors. I think they're more likely to know what they are actually majoring in (My freshman daughter doesn't know what she's majoring in yet either).

On the basketball team, all the seniors (all 2 of them!) list a major.

Olneck is not unusual in our academia. American academia is overwhelmingly lefty, indeed, it is hard for an academic to get hired, published, and eventually get tenure if you are not lefty. Most lefty academics are probably not extremely lefty but are just playing the game (because to do otherwise is career suicide). Most people are not very brave so I get why most academics play along.

What is less understandable is why state Republican parties put up with this crap at the state level. Why should tax payer money be used to subsidize lefty intolerance and discrimination against conservatives at state universities?

(laugh) It appears to be a Masters' or PhD only type major. But you can get an undergraduate certificate. The list of courses is about what you'd expect (Love that their website is 4+ years out of date -- typical for a soft science). I see Prof. Olneck's class required a student to read Deculturalization and the Struggle for Equality.

Make all the actions exactly the same, but change the political viewpoints. Would you then use the words "mob" and "physically violent"?

You're assuming that he has the psychological ability to see a situation from somebody else's viewpoint, and to empathize accordingly. This is a trait that I seldom see in social scientists. If you're well-adjusted and typical for the society in which you live, they really have no use for you.

A most inapt phrase, as I reckon it highlights more than its makers intended.

Sifting has two meanings, one involving searching and sorting for some characteristic, the other (as anyone who spent time in the kitchen with Mom knows), creating a melange of ingredients each of which is now indistinguishable. Resistance is futile, you will be assimilated.

Winnowing also has two meanings: separating the wheat from the chaff; and in evolutionary biology, characteristics mismatched for the ecosystem die out.

They want you to think the first sifting meaning, but they really mean the second.

As for winnowing, they have the juvenile arrogance to believe that they can identify the chaff. Whereas, in evolutionary biology, we learn that a gene unsuitable for today, can be highly selected for tomorrow. And that species with lots of variation, are better able to withstand the ever-coming changes in environment. And that no one knows a priori which genes confer selective advantage for today, and which for tomorrow. Hence, Idiocracy. Or, by Dennett and Dawkins, it is not clear if intelligence is a successful characteristic.

More and more, I am coming to the conclusion that I will not pay for my children to attend the standard universities. I will only pay for the specialized ones [eek!, for-profit], where the product is restricted to known topics of enduring and tangible value.

Orwell (who knew them well): The first thing that must strike any outside observer is that Socialism in its developed form is a theory confined entirely to the middle classes. The typical Socialist is not, as tremulous old ladies imagine, a ferocious-looking working man with greasy overalls and a raucous voice. He is either a youthful snob-Bolshevik who in five years' time will quite probably have made a wealthy marriage and been converted to Roman Catholicism; or, still more typically, a prim little man with a white-collar job, usually a secret teetotaller and often with vegetarian leanings, with a history of Nonconformity behind him, and, above all, with a social position which he has no intention of forfeiting.

This last type is surprisingly common in Socialist parties of every shade; it has perhaps been taken over en bloc from the old Liberal Party. In addition to this there is the horrible—the really disquieting—prevalence of cranks wherever Socialists are gathered together. One sometimes gets the impression that the mere words "Socialism" and "Communism" draw towards them with magnetic force every fruit-juice drinker, nudist, sandal-wearer, sex-maniac, Quaker, "Nature Cure" quack, pacifist, and feminist in England.

One day this summer I was riding through Letchworth when the bus stopped and two dreadful-looking old men got on to it. They were both about sixty, both very short, pink, and chubby, and both hatless. One of them was obscenely bald, the other had long grey hair bobbed in the Lloyd George style. They were dressed in pistachio-coloured shirts and khaki shorts into which their huge bottoms were crammed so tightly that you could study every dimple. Their appearance created a mild stir of horror on top of the bus.

The man next to me, a commercial traveller I should say, glanced at me, at them, and back again at me, and murmured "Socialists," as who should say, "Red Indians." He was probably right—the I.L.P. were holding their summer school at Letchworth. But the point is that to him, as an ordinary man, a crank meant a Socialist and a Socialist meant a crank.

"a true liberal would never say that what is a crime (or a tort) depends on one's political orientation."

Well..that's kinda the problem at the core of affirmative action, ennit?

All together with the U-Mad fight song..to the Village People's YMCA: U...M A D! It's fun to play at the U...M A Dee-ee. It's fun to play at the U...M A Dee-ee.You can act like a fool. You can make your own rules...cause the world revolves just round U.

Look closely at the Badger Herald tape, beginning at around 2:58. (http://badgerherald.com/news/2011/09/13/student_turnout_high.php) The concentration of students made Mr. Clegg's exit difficult, NOT anyone trying to prevent him from leaving. Near the corner of the door toward which Mr. Clegg was walking a student was entering, and clapping her hands over her head. She was standing in the path Mr. Clegg was taking, appears to have looked momentarily toward the individual leading Mr. Clegg out, but was mainly looking toward the front center of the room. She was shoved by the individual leading Mr. Clegg, and she turned, in apparent surprise at having been shoved, and indeed, "got in the face" of the individual who pushed her. Other students pulled her away immediately, and Mr. Clegg walked toward the elevator bank. No-one was held "hostage."

"It seems to me that a true liberal would never say that what is a crime (or a tort) depends on one's political orientation."

I assume you are referring to the classic concept of "liberal" when you make this statement. In our current political discourse, it is one of the hallmarks of "liberal" thinking to make the claim that crime is dependent upon one's political orientation.

It is also a hallmark of liberal thinking to deny such a double standard exists.

I probably should quit when I'm already behind, but I want to clarify a few more points.

CEO and Mr. Clegg did not come to Madison to debate the merits of our admissions policy or to simply share the results of their work. If they had, they would have shared their report with UW social scientists in advance, and engaged with them about the very real questions of technical quality and interpretation the report raises.

They did not come here to "sift and winnow," or to express an opinion. The CEO is not engaged in an academic discussion. It is using its considerable power and resources to attack and attempt to dismantle the policies that make possible the attendance of a pitifully small number of students of color at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. Mr. Clegg was here to incite opposition to the UW’s policies and procedures. During the press conference, he explicitly encouraged action by the governor to use his power of appointment to the Board of Regents to end UW’s present policies and practices. He held up the specter of lawsuits. I cannot recall if he explicitly encouraged legislative action, but already State Representative Stephen Nass, who chairs the committee charged with higher education policy, has announced his intention to initiate legislative hearings into UW-Madison’s admissions policies and procedures. This was an assault on the UW that has far more force behind it than the student protesters exhibited.

That said, despite possible appearances and others'claims to the contrary, I was not defending the conduct of the protest. I was not happy with the conduct of the protest, but that is not the immediate issue. I was defending it against what I saw, and continue to see, as scurrilous charges about mob violence and physical assaults, and the use of those charges to stigmatize the positions held by the protesters. Nothing I said should be taken to mean that I think that if protesters are well-meaning, or if a cause is one I believe in, I am okay with any and all kinds of protest action. I am not, and never have been.

michael: I want to clarify a few more points. CEO and Mr. Clegg did not come to Madison to debate the merits of our admissions policy or to simply share the results of their work. If they had, they would have [done x]

Wow Micheal. We're so forutunate that you came by to declare the intentions of CEO and Mr. Clegg.

For your next trick, I'm thinking of a number between 1 and 10....

action by the governor to use his power of appointment to the Board of Regents... the specter of lawsuits... encouraged legislative action...to initiate legislative hearings.. This was an assault on the UW that has far more force behind it than the student protesters exhibited.

Seriously? You find civil remedies to be more "violent" than the student protestors?

Orwell: "some ideas are so foolish, only an intellectual could believe them"

SOP for the Left has always been that the usual rules don't apply when they're "speaking truth to power" or some self-justifying BS. The ancestors of today's liberals are not the 60s liberals. This is Lenin's "end justifies the means" crowd.

Michael exposes himself as a fool with his insistence that the metaphorical "force" of introducing ideas was "far more" force than that used by the matrauding mob shoving employees to the ground, disrupting a conference and chasing it's principals into hiding. Moral relativism is really moral cowardice, and Mikey here is the poster child.

I find it funny that people are willing to call a distinguished professor names, behind the anonymity of their blogger profiles. If you're going to throw mud, at least be willing to put your name on it: put up, or shut up. It is also important to note that NONE of you were there to see anything. Rather, you are all basing your opinion on conjecture. What we're looking at here is a "he said, she said" argument. Show us some video. Get those employees who were knocked over to go on the record. Until someone provides those proofs: can it.

Finally, I would hope Professor Althouse would take a long, hard look at the fact that one cannot pick and choose the oppressions we find abhorrent. For example, decrying sexist remarks but not calling out blatantly racist ones is not only disingenuous, but is also discrediting. Until she, and everyone else, realizes that all oppressions are bound up together, no oppression will be overcome. Sexism is a symptom of unequal power relationships between men and women, the end result being men hold societal power over women. This is reinforced in social systems, etc. Professor Althouse: please stop picking your oppressions to be aghast at. Realize that all oppressions are interrelated, and call them out as they happen; not just the ones you're most sensitive to. (Hint: it makes your responses all the more powerful when people realize you're not obscenely biased.)

I find it funny that white professors cling desperately to their jobs rather than giving way to far more "oppressed" minority applicants. That these professors don't care a whit about the hundreds of Wisconsin kids rejected by the system simply becuase of their skin color goes without saying. Retroactive retributive justice administered 6 generations too late. Brilliant!

Having spent over 57 years in the workforce, in mostly nontraditional female jobs, it seems to me that Prof Althouse is limiting her vision of women's abilty.

Having been warned to "not get in a pissing contest with a skunk" by my Grandpa...I've had to hold my nose to hold my own. There is always a way to reframe the contest, and there in lies the strength of the woman and her abilty to compete with man. We must harness the physics of the universe in our favor: add contest qualifiers beyond distance...such as volume, velocity, color...odor if you have the stomach for it! Whatever it takes to create the even playing field we all desire.

@Crafty Penquin...the world must feel like sandpaper against your skin every day, requiring yourself and others to respond to all oppressions. I'm exhausted just thinking about it.

Charles Willeford's memoir Something about a Soldier (1986) has a very graphic, very funny account of a pissing contest won by a woman in the Philippines (page 103 in the Ballantine paperback). He does say the ladies need to practice, but if they are in competition condition, they can beat us guys by four to five feet, easily.

Sexism is caused by men holding societal power over women? Apparently Craftypenguin slept through the last 3 decades. Duke Lacrosse rape hoax anyone? The Group of 88 were right about one thing at least: what happened at Duke was indeed symbolic of larger problems in society.

His on-topic argument is just as flawed: in the professor's own words he admits participating in a violent mob.

I don't need to see the video to know it was a violent mob because both sides agree that the group of people in question behaved like a violent mob.

Until she, and everyone else, realizes that all oppressions are bound up together, no oppression will be overcome. Sexism is a symptom of unequal power relationships between men and women, the end result being men hold societal power over women. This is reinforced in social systems, etc.

"Tax season is right around the corner. If you are looking for someone you can trust to prepare your tax return go to www.davehallsba.com" Also make sure that they have a focus in the USA with their site or customers and that the spelling is very important to get right.For more information plz click this linkStart-up Businesssmall business helpbusiness successbusiness entitytax help